Did we beat the Magic on their home court? Did the Magic have the horrible schedule Portland had so far? Easy pick.
I don't agree. Boston's played an easy schedule, and Portland has not. Why are your simple numbers more convincing than Hollinger's more complicated formula? Ed O.
Boston has not played an easy schedule. They have played a very slighty tougher than average schedule (0.502) . The Blazers schedule has been tougher (0.533), but not enough to justify putting the 12 - 6 team ahead of the 16 - 2 team. Especially, when Boston's schedle over the last 10 games has been tougher than Portland's (0.490 vs. 0.457). While their schedule has been a little tougher, the Blazers have lost 3x as many games as the Celtics. Yes, the Blazers have played 3 more road games than the Celtics, but they've also lost 5 more road games. The Celtics are 7 - 1 on the road, the Blazers are 5 - 6 on the road. They're not my simple numbers, they're his. I just choose to interpret them differently. To me, the team with the 16 - 2 record should be ranked higher than the 12 - 6 team - given that the SOS difference isn't extreme (like Orlando's), and Boston has a higher margin of victory and has played a tougher schedule over the last 10 games with superior (9 - 1 vs. 7 - 3) results. BNM
Hollinger equates recent performance and home and road into his formula also. HOLLINGER'S FORMULA RATING = (((SOS-0.5)/0.037)*0.67) + (((SOSL10-0.5)/0.037)*0.33) + 100 + (0.67*(MARG+(((ROAD-HOME)*3.5)/(GAMES))) + (0.33*(MARGL10+(((ROAD10-HOME10)*3.5)/(10))))) SOS = Season win/loss percentage of team's opponents, expressed as a decimal (e.g., .500) SOSL10 = Season win/loss percentage of team's last 10 opponents, expressed as a decimal (e.g., .500) MARG = Team's average scoring margin MARGL10 = Team's average scoring margin over the last 10 games HOME = Team's home games HOMEL10 = Team's home games over the last 10 games ROAD = Team's road games ROADL10 = Team's road games over the last 10 games GAMES = Team's total games http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Rankings-Intro
Does Hollinger factor in that the Celts are a well oiled veteran team, and we're in fact the youngest team in the NBA? (Raef doesn't count, he hasn't played a game, and is just a contract.) AND that we're still sputtering and popping like a high performance engine that's out of tune? By the way Boobs, I'm a big fan or yours, keep up the good work.
Which is kind of mind blowing, because this blazer team is not even close to firing on all cylinders yet.
That's conclusory. In fact, his equation is a better indicator of success than simple win-loss percentage. If it were not, he wouldn't waste his time and nobody at ESPN.com would pay him for what he does. Ed O.
Do you have any historical data to support your interpretation? He has looked at previous seasons and determined that the way he crunches the numbers makes for a more accurate predictor of playoff success. I don't think you have a leg to stand on in calling his system "highly flawed". Well, other than your opinion, which I respect generally... but I don't respect unsupported opinion when it comes to statistical equations. Sorry. Ed O.
Well thats an OPINION so stuff like that wont be factored in...You guys had a tough schedule to start and blew some teams out so the power rankings reflect that
You think it's not? Blake and Outlaw are shooting at career-bests. Fernandez and Batum have had very uncommon success for rookies. Joel is playing the best basketball of his NBA career. Oden should improve, and I would expect Aldridge to, as well. I'm excited to get Webster back. The perimeter shooting, though, has been remarkable and I don't know that we can sustain that all season... so even as we improve in other areas I don't see us suddenly "firing on all cylinders" to the tune of massive improvement. Ed O.
Yes he should, but just to add to your argument Joel is playing at an unconscious level...so its as if Oden were dominating right now ...so yes, they are firing on all cylinders (especially with LA's play recently) or damn close to it.
Not sure what you mean, but I'll simply maintain that he overcompensates for win margin. No doubt, but it could certainly be better - he agrees and is working on it. Stephen A. Smith is a complete idiot, but he get paid well for what he does. I enjoy hollinger's work but I feel that it has an obvious flaw - but it it philosophically interesting. For example, how do you compare the following two teams: Team 1: wins by 50, loses by 10, loses by 10 After 3 games: +30, or +10/game Team 2: wins by 8, wins by 8, wins by 8. After 3 games: +24 or +8/game To me, Team 2 is obviously better, but no so by a points differential point of view. Hollinger's method would say that these teams are actually pretty close, but I don't think it's close.
We're just seeing the tip of the iceberg with Oden, I expect him to get better with each game for a long time. Batum is only 19 years old and has yet to learn the other teams players strengths & weaknesses. No way is he playing to his potential at his age and experience. Sergio is going to get a lot better with playing time and experience. Outlaw hasn't peaked yet. Martel, anybody that watched the preseason against Sacramento could see that Martel was leaner, more aggressive, more confident, driving to the hoop with authority... this is his break-out year. Rudy, can play way better than he has lately. Bayless, hasn't contributed at all. That will change if we keep him. Also, this team is just now beginning to learn defense. They'll get much better with time. Is that reason enough?
That, and each year he works hard to improve the equation, and make it more accurate. It has improved in design, every year it has been done.
Yeah, until he reaches game 50 and says "Holy shit! There is still 35 games left!!!" He is gonna hit a wall
Yes, I do. 2007-08 NBA Champions - Boston Celtics. 2007-08 Portland Trailblazers: 41-41 failed to make the play-offs More accurate than what? Play-off experince, past play-off success? His formula isn't 100% accurate. I doubt if it would have predicted the 76-77 Trail Blazers defeating the 76ers for the NBA title. If it's like PER, he's constantly adjusting the formula when new data becomes available - but it still isn't and can never be 100% accurate. It's really just an exercise in curve fitting - creating a formula that best matches the past data he deems relevant. You can do the same thing with stock prices, but as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future success. The Celtics are the defending NBA champions. The top nine players in their current rotation have a combined 363 games of play-off experience. The top nine players in the Blazers rotation have 14 games of combined play-off experience (9 games for Blake and 5 for Joel). So, while it's only my humble opinion, I would personally rank the defending champion, play-off tested team with the 16 - 2 record ahead of the 12-6 team that lacks meaningful play-off experience. And, in spite of what Hollinger's equation says (this week), I find those stats (play-off experience, past play-off success) a better predictor of future play-off success. BNM
